ExSoldier762 said:MY idea of the (near) perfect Scout Rifle. It goes over the weight limits just a tad. But you can't beat it for CQB and fast followup shots.
A very good buddy of mine has one. I'm saving to buy one. I have a full size M1A Super Match, sniper tuned w/Harris bi-pod and a 3x10 Range Finding Sheppherd scope. The only issues of which I'm aware on the shorty is that it is L-O-U-D! AND it seems to have problems with heating up the forearm assembly during sustained fire, but I think this is being addressed. I like it because the mags are interchangeable with my other M1A. I love the forward mounted optic; either ACOG or Holosight would work for me.Euclidean said:Ex I've always thought that one of those rifles would be the ideal thing for me, but I hear they've got a lot of QC issues. I've heard all sorts of horror stories and I met one man who claimed he had one and never could get it to work for him.
But I also realize that people say the same thing about any gun. Do you have one of those? I have to admit that is an interesting product.
Despite Cooper's influence over the industry for good and for ill, it's a concept that differs from what most folks are used to and want. A scope sits in X position on a rifle, and that's what folks are used to. Long eye relief choices are also extremely limited in the scope department, and it's even more difficult to share a rifle with such a setup with someone in my experience because length of pull really screws with the required distance to make the optics work.Is there something in between? Why isn't there?
In all honesty, spend some quality time shooting a lot of good semiautos. Aimed rate of fire (versus the spray and pray, which even some of the bolt action guys can do) with quick sight pictures will net you 40-60 rounds per minute with a semi. You're going to be half that or less with a bolt gun just due to the gymnastics.Euclidean said:To me, I always thought the point was that if you can really work a bolt gun competently, your "rate of fire" is the exact same with the bolt action or the self loading action.
Cooper misses the mark - there is no mechanical device that won't fail you at a certain point. The scout rifle can be crippled by a freak ammo accident, or a broken firing pin, or whatever else when you need it most. So can a semi.I like semiautomatic rifles just fine, but I think a general purpose do it all rifle like this should have a manual action. The thing is, the Scout concept is supposed to be the rifle that never fails you.
So are most military rifles with well-thought out optics.The sight system is redundant.
You don't in most weapons when things go horribly wrong. That said, additional magazines are part of any weapons system that takes them - just like the ammo for the scout.The loading capability is redundant in the sense you shouldn't need a magazine to be able to use the rifle.
So does a gas-operated system to reduce recoil versus a bolt gun.The sling and bipod give you maximum stability.
In the weight department, I personally would rather have a couple more pounds in the weapon for stability and recoil and robustness.The size and light weight let you get closer.
Most modern bolt guns aren't going to be shot with any regularity - it's why you see such good condition new ones. Nobody (including the manufacturers, I'd wager, in some cases) really knows what the mean time between failures is going to be in field conditions on a standard civilian gun, and I note that Cooper does not specify what is acceptable in that realm. As a former military man during his time of service, I'm amazed that it's not a listed requirement.What is more reliable than a bolt action rifle? What is simpler than a bolt action rifle? Not much.
If it goes up and I have to choose, I want a weapon I can operate one handed. I've taken a knife before in the hand. I want something that can be fired around a corner to provide cover if it comes to that, or suppressive fire in a manner that a single or small group of dudes with bolt guns could only dream of.Honestly if the balloon goes up and I had to choose, I'd take a rifle with a simple, rugged manual action over a semiautomatic if I had to make the choice. See my semiautomatic rifles are 100% reliable but that's my rifle, not someone else's.
If you're alone in the field, you're already going to be vulnerable. Target fixation occurs regardless of scope type. With the bipod down and in the proper Cooper position, your field of view is already extremely limited even with no scope. This is why if at all possible you train with a friend or friends who you can trust implicitly and agree to back each other up if possible.Not to mention, say you are using a traditional scope. Too bad you didn't see that guy with a sock full of quarters sneak up on you.
You can spray ammo with the bolt gun as well. Every shot under fire is not an aimed shot. There are times when you can choose to conserve ammo and not gain a strategic advantage or escape, leaving your corpse well-equipped for the next guy, or use the weapon strategically.Not to mention if the SHTF, spraying ammunition all over this place will be ill advised. Conservation of resources is paramount.
Put a Ultimak mount on a Saiga with a scout scope or a rail extension on the traditional wraparound. You're there in the mid-range if the scout scope is that important to you.See I'd even settle for some sort of pseudo scout design with a traditional optic with some kind of backup sights that met all the other criteria, hell it could even be semiautomatic too, but I don't see anything like that on the market either, at least not in the middle market. I can think of some high end rifles that would meet this description.
A rifle for survival purposes, where things like detachable magazines and the like come into play, is already a SHTF situation in all honesty. The scout rifle may be usable for property-type defense but is going to be pretty useless at short ranges against competent or even incompetent aggressors with superior firepower. We (or at least me) don't walk around with rifles all day or have them available at all times in all places. Long-range shots (or even ones beyond simple point-shooting range) aren't particularly common. Thus, the scout and its ilk fill a particular "bad day" niche at best.Euclidean said:An excellent and fair rebuttal, but I have one question for you.
You keep talking about things like laying down suppressive fire, cover fire, and shooting to escape.
I agree in the hypothetical SHTF situations we talk about (that aren't so hypothetical in most of the world), such things are a neccessary part of the discussion.
In terms of magnitude of problem, I agree with you - but in terms of probability, I generally don't. The folks who live around you are the big threat - society doesn't care generally as a whole one way or another about any one of us. Neither does law enforcement.However I realize that open fighting is not the greatest possible threat to my personal safety. I don't want the LEO types here to take this the wrong way, but the greatest threat to my own personal safety is my own government and the society I live in.
What you're assuming is that these things *must* be used. Again, it's like a car that does 120 mph - you may not need to do 120 today, or ever - but it's in your bag of tricks if you have to.See I don't have a badge or a uniform and I don't deserve one. However, the very idea of using military techniques like cover fire in my own defense is simply going to get me in trouble.
I don't worry much about getting sued - I've had nothing before and built up from far less than the minimum bankrupcty-allowable reserve.For one thing I'm going to get sued and I have no legal protection from it.
If you carry a gun, and have to use it, you're probably going to get charged with something. I've been there more than once and I haven't enjoyed it any more with each passing iteration - but it's better than the alternative.For another I'm probably going to get charged with something.
I won't do something I know will harm an innocent bystander unless they're already going to die by my inaction or have reasonable probability of the same.For a third, I personally would rather die like a filthy dog than do something that would hurt an innocent bystander.
Yep.Now I understand that in a lot of bad situations, there's a chance you may hurt someone that doesn't deserve it and if you don't do anything at all it's just going to be worse.
FBI now says to shoot until the threat stops. If that means one round, I'll use one. If it means everything I have, I'll use everything I have. Again, the car model.But unless I ever catch myself in a war (which realistically is not going to happen anytime remotely soon), I'm just being negligent by ascribing to the military model of "Let's shoot the crap out of it."
The truth is that any firearm has the risk of penetration, deflection, freak accident, etc. when fired in defense.A concept like "lanes of fire" is not something I relish trying in a crowded suburb full of innocent people no matter how much danger I'm in.
If I can't get it done without hurting anyone else, well I'm just SOL because I'm too much of a wuss to risk an innocent person if I don't have to.
I follow the survival methodology. I don't assume one shot or even five will necessarily stop the target. It hasn't in my experiences and freak events happen - so I'd rather be prepared for an additional freak on a day that things are already freaky.Thus I subscribe to the Cooper model. I'm far more likely to be one man alone under severe legal and self imposed ethical restrictions on tactics than anything else. The precision methodology is better than having no methodology at all under such restrictions.
Read his letters and G&A columns - it's full of various dogma about you don't need a second shot, etc. The truth is that you *may* not, but you *may* too.Cooper himself even says in the Art of the Rifle that riflecraft as he defines it has no place in a standing military or in a war. He never says that his techniques are universal anywhere I can see.
There's really no place for a medium-range precision rifle in 'normal' defensive scenarios, especially if you're worried about overpenetration and neighbors. .308, even out of a bolt gun, goes through a lot of suburbia.Thus unless the situation truly does descend into complete chaos, like in say a war, the Cooper methodology is more sound and responsible.
If I'm forced to shoot, it's a complete disintegration. A war is merely a series of battles, and once I'm in a battle, I fight accordingly.Now if it was a complete disintegration, your thinking is indeed better.
Escape isn't always possible without providing some level of cover - if I can keep the heads down of attackers with superior numbers or position and use that to cross the alley to a car or a better position or to duck around the corner and that's the only way to keep them from continuing to shoot at my position, better believe I'll do it.I find it interesting you believe that firing unaimed shots in the interest of trying to escape is a viable tactic. If I can escape, why fire the shots at all? I'll take my rifle and go home. Or am I not understanding correctly?
They're around in reasonable quantity if you know where to look. The shop here still has a 308 with wood furniture NIB.And I'm depressed there's no more Saigas. Saigas are cool.
Pakn - it ain't that hard! Go to somewhere like Photobucket or ImageShack - do a search for the URL's - and place your own pics on there by uploading..If I can ever figure out how to post pics on this site I would post one